The satanical and sodomitical Puffington Post has an article about the percentage of Catholics over all of Latin America having sunk to 67%; which is, we are told, the worst result ever.
I will not link to the article for various reason (no revenue for the PuffPo, and partially indecent and certainly stupid side images), but this appears to be the fact.
Being perverts and their friends, the PuffPo people think the flock… flocks to the Evangelicals because of the pedophile priest scandal (if you are a pervert or his friend, it is absolutely taboo to mention the Church without the scandal) and because of the “solemn” Catholic masses as opposed to the “emotional, vibrant sermons” of the Evangelicals. If they had respectively said “vapid, childish, and stupid” and “with a recognisable Christian content” they would have gone nearer to reality; but this is the PuffPo, and reality isn’t much high in their list of priorities. They also imply that religion is something for the uneducated poor, as they point out that in Chile and Uruguay – the wealthiest Countries of the region – atheism apparently advances, or so they say, without mentioning data.
Still: the number is there. The Francis effect is… causing losses for Catholicism. Losses in a traditionally extremely catholic continent, and losses even after the hugely expensive and media-hyped exercise of last year’s World Youth Day.
Francis stinks of secularism from the black shoes up. He is a betrayal and a parody of what a Pope is supposed to be. More and more people throw away the baby together with the – admittedly: very dirty – bathwater and start going to Protestant services. I can well imagine many of them have no easy access to even a half decent mass, and have not heard a decent homily from a Catholic pulpit for a long time. No, wait: pulpit? Not many of those are used anymore, either.
And so the Church continues to shrink, and souls are put at risk of damnation, whilst Francis and his friends – some of them heterosexual; some of them Catholic; some of them actually not Marxist – keep having the time of their life.
Even the magazine cover effect is wearing down. When you drug the simple with such massive doses of stupidity and populism, the doses must become bigger and bigger, as the pressure to behave halfway as a Pope grows bigger too.
It will be interesting to know how Francis tackles this problem. He has already stretched the tolerance of Catholics beyond breaking point, and beyond every sense of shame. I can’t think he will start dancing the Tango in St Peter Square.
Perhaps he should just resign whilst he is ahead in the estimation of the simple, and provide a golden retirement for himself.
The cry of “santo subito dopo morto” would be deafening.
The “Gang of Eight” is going to meet again after the disgraceful canonisations of John XXIII and John Paul II.
They want to (trendy word alarm!) “streamline” the Vatican machinery, in order to better manage the continuous decline of Christianity all over the West and to be faster in issuing press releases whenever a Church is desecrated by graffiti, or naked nymphomaniacs.
In order to do so, they want to… create a new layer of administration, in the form of a “coordinator” or “moderator” (no, let's say it in Latin: moderator curiae), whose job will clearly be to add a layer of busybodying into the machinery; thus, ahem, “streamlining” it.
I have already made the comparison between the Vatican machinery and General Motors in the Fifties: a rather monstrous administrative apparatus which felt no desire to “streamline” because it just did not need to. The Vatican is no different. The expenses caused by the couple of thousand priests and prelates there are but a very small exercise compared to the immense apparatus of the Church, an organisation employing around a million only of priests and religious people of both sexes, to which the vast number millions employed by affiliated organisations like Catholic charities worldwide must be added.
If we look at reality in a cynical way, we will see that there is no need for painful cuts, merely a wish that things be cheaper and better organised. Against this, we have the fallen nature of humans, the vanity, at times even the good intentions; creating one day o new office, one day a moderator, one day a new congregation (this might be about to happen, too…).
The necessity to reduce expenses is – rhetoric aside – just not there. The Church is brutally rich and she might not have been so well off – relatively speaking – since the Renaissance. She will not be put out of any “market” if she isn't very lean. To her, efficiency is a thing that looks good in theory, and very difficult in everyday life.
Look at how effortlessly even a circus article like Cardinal Dolan can gather the huge amount necessary to restore St Patrick Cathedral – or an utter disgrace like Mahony could gather more than needed for the edification of the “Taj Mahony” – and realise that the Church has at her disposal virtually unlimited means, that she must only tap when needed in order to satisfy her every material need. By all the rhetoric of poverty, Francis knows it perfectly well.
No, there is no need to streamline anything. The human vanity, though, is still there, and her needs are strong. Francis is, by all his talk, giving the example by promoting people belonging to his circle of friends, thus showing once again that vicinity to the power is better than competence or honesty – or basic decency – every day of the week.
Be one of Francis' buddies and he will put you at the head of a bank even if you are a scandalous sodomite. Be an orthodox religious order and he will crush you no matter how successful you are.
It doesn't look like a recipe for administrative efficiency and honesty to me.
Rather, say hello to the “moderator”.
The First Fag President of the once glorious United States has invited the first so-called “gay” so-called “bishop” of a so-called “church” to give the final so-called blessing at some speech or other some days ago. With the usual class, the “bishop queen” twitted “OMG!”, thinking he is a screaming, stupid, self-centred adolescent girl. Which he is not. Adolescent, I mean. Anagraphically, at least.
On reading this, I reflected on the perversion of modern times, when Christianity has become such a faint remembrance, and perversion so mainstream, that even a POTUS can get away with what Barry just did without being flayed to death.
Today, on Good Friday, we can reflect on how many, in a position of power, crucify Christvevery day not (only) with their private sins, but by openly attacking Christian morality at every level: social, legal, and religious.
And then I thought: what if Barry would, faithful to his “inclusive” creed, suddenly discover a same-sex attraction for the girlish “OMG” “bishop”? Look, Obama is enough of a spineless wimp, to the point that he has even openly admitted he doesn't smoke out of sheer fear of his wife. And then there's Michelle O.: a woman with jaws good for a Spielberg movie, and whose entire demeanour and attitude to life says she would so much have wanted to be born with a willie, but she had to find an emasculated puppet in order to become the President Of The United States By Proxy. Oh, the injustice of modern times…
What if, then, Barry were to embrace his already rather developed inner faggot, and discover a sudden same-sex attraction for the ageing wannabe bishop “OMG!” Robinson? Let's look at it.
The so-called bishop's “lover” would have to recognise that the “Spirit” has led the so-called bishop to this new “experience”. He would have to be “supportive”, of course. That's the first obstacle gone.
Michelle “Jaws” Obama would have to recognise, at least in public, that even her husband – whom she certainly considers a third-class loser, first-class nuisance and utter idiot – has a “right” to his “happiness”, and it would be too late now to start defending traditional roles. The daughters are also, in fact, old enough to be “punished with a baby”, so they should not be shocked too much at something so “normal” like their father undergoing a “new phase”. That's obstacle two (and, as far as they count anything, mini-obstacles three and four) gone.
And then there is the most important obstacle: the voters. But you see, the beauty of being a POTUS at the second mandate is that you don't have to stand for an election ever again. If your name is Barry O. you can just sit and relax, polishing your image for the well-paid speeches to come. Playing more golf, if possible. Things like that. Voters are not your concern anymore. Your wife is, of course. But only if she is near enough to strike.
The voters would be, obviously, severely tested. One thinks of the Black vote, to a good extent not consisting of atheist trannies. But hey, if they plaud the POTUS when he invites the faggot bishop to bless people, why should they criticise him when the President himself practices what he preaches?
And so we are nearing the happy end: in this XXI century of ours the President of the United States could leave his wife and family and run away with an homosexual so-called cleric and the majority of the Country would have no other choice, if they have a shred of coherence left, than to look and applaud.
Then Michelle would be free to go on and have – if technology allows – her own little operation herself.
Happiness all around.
I have written already why the cassock should be the obligatory garment of a priest wherever the occasion does not make it practical for him to wear his trousered clerical garments. This blog post is not about that.
This blog post is about the fact that an old Sixty-Eighter dares to lecture a priest about what is supposed to be, as far as I know, the standard habit anyway; and, just a tad less gravely, that the young priest is at the end so intimidated he feels the need to cry on Father Z’s robust shoulder and seek from him some suggestion about what he is to do, even coming to the point of saying that he does not know how to explain to his deacon and his flock what is what.
Heavens. These old people, they have no respect for anything these days…
My first suggestion to the young priest is to grow some balls, wear his cassock with pride not only in, but also outside of the confessional, and tell the deacon to kindly shut up if he does not have anything sound to say.
My second suggestion to the priest is to explore the possibilities of the deacon being transferred, removed, or otherwise sent to play the tambourine elsewhere. Then, if the lay of the land is a favourable one, he should make very clear to the deacon, in a matter-of-fact way, what his options are and that by continued resistance to sound Catholicism – one who talks in this way with his own priest certainly does a lot of damage all the time – they will be used without any problem.
My suggestion to the old bullying deacon is to pray, if he still knows how, and to change. But old dogs and tricks comes to mind, so this may well be a difficult one.
The cassock makes sense only if inside it there is a man ready for conflicts, because the cassock is just the garment that will, sooner or later, cause them to happen. A weak cassock-wearing priest does no service to himself or to the cassock. A priest should first become fit for the cassock, and then wear it because it is the garment fitting him.
Make no mistake: people will notice.
After the Dancing Dominicans and the Nutty Nun, we now have the Performing Priest. I mean by that the disgraceful chap who had the brilliant idea of singing, probably from the sanctuary no less, some stupid song just after the end of a nuptial mass.
One does not know what is most horrible: a priest without any respect for his habit, a priest without any respect for a sacred building, a priest without any respect for the sacredness of a Marriage – a Sacrament, let us remember: not a show of emotionalism – or a priest without any respect for the Tabernacle – which hey, these days is behind him all the time; so it tends to be somewhat forgotten… -.
One thing this priest saw: an audience.
One thing this priest loved: himself.
And I really, really dare to hope that the alleged surprise was discussed in advance in enough detail to avoid dismay and tears; because to ruin a sacred ceremony in this way without any kind of permission from the spouses would have deserved the to be slapped in the face by the bridegroom; on the spot, and without apology.
But then again, we deserve these parodies of priests. If we praise the Mad Nun from Sicily, why should we not praise every nutcase who thinks he needs an audience for his performance? Why would the next priest not “donate” a rock guitar piece, or a party card trick, or a virtuosism with a football (soccer) ball, or whatever else allows him to show his boundless love for himself?
We praise these nutcases. We find them fun. The most deluded even think someone may be converted from seeing a minus habens make an ass of himself. It's like saying “if we make of Christianity a circus, those who like circus might be converted”. Well, let's make of it a brothel, then. Lots of conversions, methinks.
We are preparing for ourselves a future for third-rate jokers. When the Joker-In-Chief wears a Red Nose to the further edification of his own humble monument, what prevents a nun or a priest to make asses of themselves in whatever way they please?
The fish stinks from the head down. The head of this particular fish stinks to the sky. It's no surprise the stink arrives to the most obscure parishes.
You start with the guitars at mass, you end up with the jokers in the sanctuary, the Pinocchio Masses, the Tango Masses, the Western Masses, the performing nuns, and the rest. It has to be so. It is In the nature of a thinking without love for the sacred, and without any sense of sacredness.
The Novus Ordo must die. Gradually, but it must die. And when it dies, articles like the singing priest must not be allowed to get near a Tridentine Mass; lest they think the reverent silence will let their voice be better appreciated.
The unspeakable Gaystapo scandal at Firefox is only some weeks old, but the reaction is getting traction out there in the cyberspace.
The story might be, for the moment, out of the big headlines, but there are always people who care for more than the headlines of the day.
They write, they blog, they make their voices heard. In time, they manage to have the shame stay attached to the target company. In time, it can really hurt.
The images you see below have been found in a matter of a couple of minutes after googling “boycott Firefox”. The reaction is clearly growing fast; not in the headlines of the mainstream media, but in the world of the common people.
Please pick one or more of your images and mail it to your friends; blog them if you run a blog; post them in discussion fora; make them go around. Let them become a more and more diffused presence on the net. In time, this will really hurt.
This is a fast and effective way to let the word spread.
Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:
The usual Nazi suspects have called for Google to censor a smartphone app helping them to overcome their homosexuality.
Note the mentality of the Nazi faggots: they do not disagree with you, they want to silence you. Everything that goes against their faggotry must disappear.
These people truly are not only a danger for their own souls, but for democracy.
Kirsten Dunst recently gave the world the following piece of advice:
We all have to get our own jobs and make our own money, but staying at home, nurturing, being the mother, cooking – it’s a valuable thing my mum created. And sometimes, you need your knight in shining armour. I’m sorry. You need a man to be a man and a woman to be a woman. That’s why relationships work …”
Where I come from, such a phrase would have been greeted with expressions like the immortal “ma va?”, which is the Italian for “you don’t say?”.
And in fact, looking at it at face value, Kirsten Dunst has said something that might have won Platitude Of The Year award… if we lived in normal times.
But we do not live in normal times. We live in times in which a small army of harpies and their emasculated manservants start making screeching noises everytime one states the obvious, because in their perverted mind the obvious is oppressive, patriarchal, or whatever.
This is what happens when you are nice to perverted bastards.
Perverted bastards will first play the victim with you to elicit your “inclusion”, and then will proceed to exclude you and all those who do not think like them from the discourse of civil society.
It is so in everything. gay parades becomes civil partnerships, which become marriage, which become a human right, which make of you a racist if you think they are damn perverts.
Or with “gender theory”, an outlandish delirium first, then somethign cool to write about, then something accepted, then imposed by pervert judges, and used to indoctrinate and pervert children.
We must stop this unspeakable crap of inclusiveness. We must be utterly non-inclusive of perverts. Perversion must have no place in a Christian society, and no Christian is ever authorised to “include” it in absolutely anything.
We are to the point when a platitude, an obvious fact of life like Kirsten Dunst’ statement makes wave. We must react before it’s too late and Big LGBT Brother tells our children what kind of “gay” porn they must be made to look at in the morning to grow more “inclusive”. We are already not far from that point, when children are exposed to sexual perversion in elementary school. It’s basically the same, with just some of the crassness taken away.
Thankfully, it appear Ms Dunst has got a lot of support.
But it must go much further than that. The times of “niceness” to every pervert must end. Perversion can’t be mainstream. Perversion is abomination in the eyes of the Lord, and gravely damaging to our children.
Let’s hope the Gaystapo elicit the right reaction more and more often. By their nature, they will become more and more oppressive of every freedom. Civil society will be tested. I trust it will win. Not immediately, and not without some harsh fight, but win it will.
The link is here, but the text is below in its entirety (and beauty).
The study mentioned in the linked text is here.
One has the impression the battle lines are forming.
God bless the SSPX.
Christus vincit, Christus regnat, Christus imperat!
Statement by Bp. Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X, on the new pastoral approach to marriage according to Cardinal Kasper
What will happen at the Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops that is to be held October 5 – 19, 2014, dedicated to “the pastoral challenges for the family in the context of evangelization?” This question is asked with great concern, since during the last Consistory, on February 20, 2014, Cardinal Walter Kasper, at the request of Pope Francis and with his emphatic support, presented the topic of the next Synod by making supposedly pastoral overtures that were doctrinally scandalous.
This presentation, which was initially supposed to remain secret, was published in the press, and the agitated debates that it sparked among the members of the Consistory ended up being revealed as well. One university professor dared to speak about a veritable “cultural revolution” (Roberto de Mattei), and one journalist described as a “paradigm shift” the fact that Cardinal Kasper proposes that divorced-and-“remarried” Catholics could go to Communion, even without their earlier marriage being annulled: “at present that is not the case, based on Jesus’ very severe and explicit words about divorce.” (Sandro Magister)
Some prelates have spoken up against this change, such as Cardinal Carlo Caffara, Archbishop of Bologna, who asked:
What about the first ratified and consummated marriage? If the Church admits [the divorced-and-“remarried”] to the Eucharist, she must however render a judgment about the legitimacy of the second union. That is only logical. But then -as I asked-what about the first marriage? The second, they say, cannot be a true second marriage, because bigamy goes against the Lord’s words. And what about the first one? Is it dissolved? But the Popes have always taught that the power of the Pope cannot go that far: the Pope has no authority over a ratified and consummated marriage. The solution proposed (by Cardinal Kasper) leads one to think that the first marriage remains, but there is also a second form of cohabitation that the Church legitimizes…. The fundamental question is therefore simple: what about the first marriage? But no one gives an answer.” (Il Foglio, March 15, 2014)
One could add the serious objections formulated by Cardinals Gerhard Ludwig Müller, Walter Brandmüller, Angelo Bagnasco, Robert Sarah, Giovanni Battista Re, Mauro Piacenza, Angelo Scola, Camillo Ruini… But these objections, too, remain unanswered.
We cannot wait, without speaking up, for the Synod to be held next October in the disastrous spirit that Cardinal Kasper wants to give to it. The attached study, entitled “The New Pastoral Approach to marriage according to Cardinal Kasper” shows the gross errors contained in his presentation.
Not to denounce them would amount to leaving the door open to the dangers pointed out by Cardinal Caffarra:
Therefore there would be such a thing as extramarital human sexuality that the Church considers legitimate. But that negates the central pillar of the Church’s teaching on sexuality. At that point someone might wonder: then why not approve of extramarital cohabitation? Or relations between homosexuals?” (Ibid.)
Whereas in recent months many families have demonstrated courageously against civil laws that, everywhere, are undermining the natural, Christian family, it is simply scandalous to see these same laws surreptitiously supported by churchmen who wish to align Catholic doctrine and morality with the morals of a de-Christianized society, instead of seeking to convert souls. A pastoral approach that scoffs at the explicit teaching of Christ on the indissolubility of marriage is not merciful but insulting to God, who grants His grace sufficiently to everyone; and it is cruel toward the souls who, when placed in difficult situations, receive the grace that they need in order to live a Christian life and even to grow in virtue, to the point of heroism.
Menzingen, April 12, 2014
Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X
Laudetur Jesus Christus!
Semel in anno!
For the record: this is not an April's Joke.
Yours truly, who is rather cynical, doesn't think for a moment Francis has started to think or act in the right way himself. Rather, it might be that he has understood that every now and then he must speak as a Pope, lest he becomes the joke of thinking Catholics the world over. Thinking Catholics who are still an awful lot, run countless blogs, and begin to get their criticism into the mainstream.
No, for Holy Week we might get glimpses of a Pope, ahem, “obsessed with abortion”. He has even managed to speak about the complementarity of male and female, and I am sure the Pollyannas will exult because he does not endorse “gender theory” (you don't say?!).
Still, I hope this goes all over the planet. If it does, it will be interesting to see how the Naral-crowd react. If it doesn't, it will be interesting to see whether Francis continues until the message gets through, or thinks rather he has done enough for this year, and now he can keep talking about his favourite issue: gossip…
Don't get me wrong: this is good news! But we must avoid the Paul VI phenomenon, where a freakishly bad Pope gets away with almost everything because he done one thing right in fifteen years of Pontificate.
Still, it might be the begin of a new beginning. Or the end of the “red nose” beginning. Or a very partial recovery of basic sanity. Or the discovery he can't be the Pope of … those who don't believe in the Papacy. Or the realisation at least on abortion he will have to toe to the “party line” in order for him to be able to spread havoc in all the rest.
We shall see.
Happy Holy Week.
The sad news is that if you belong to a Christian Group called Americans for Truth about Homosexuality, the Canadian Arm of the Gaystapo will try to prevent you from entering Canada.
The good news is that the Canadian Arm of the Gaystapo will immediately get some sex-sex loving from the “appeal” instance, which if I understand correctly was merely an administrative on the spot decision without the need to address any immigration court.
Yes, the Gaystapo will try to silence Christians wherever they are, or wherever they go. Yes, they will bully public officers – in this case, frontier police – to do their bidding. But no, it won't be so easy as the West hopefully wakes up to Gaystapo oppression as it woke up to Global Warming liberal hysteria.
There is a long way in front of us. But we have a strong tradition of freedom of expression on our side. I trust in the end – not without time and trouble, and losses – this tradition will prove stronger than the Gaystapo offensive currently under way.
The jury has been out a long time – but only because we are charitable, and he the Successor of Peter – to decide whether the Bishop of Rome is merely a minus habens or a positively evil one.
It is somewhat difficult to say, because the man is so unconcerned with contradicting himself in the most blatant way, so utterly indifferent whether he makes any sense at all or not, that a case of sheer stupidity cannot be excluded. What is certain, is that if a politician went around spreading the same nonsense day in and day out Francis regales us with, the world would laugh out loud, and he wouldn't be a politician for long.
Very recently, the Bishop of Rome gave us another stunning example of this astonishing behaviour: first he assured us that the Devil exists, and then he told us one of his most evil actions is to lead people to gossip.
As to the first part, yes we can read, and we know even the Gospel mentions the devil. Francis must think his audience have no idea at all of Christianity to make such platitudes the object of a homily. I mean, some not well meaning heretics may think that no one goes to hell, but no sane Christian would doubt the existence of the Devil.
Note, though, that in Francis' Catholic Disneyland there is no serious consequence attached to this existence of Satan: if God slaps us in the wrist at most – most days, I mean; on other days he sends you to hell if you are a mafioso; on no day common people are in danger of damnation – and following one's conscience is enough even if one is an atheist, Francis' Satan is nothing else than a bearded and horned nincompoop spinning around for no real or lasting purpose.
This cretinous thinking is shown by the other “teaching” of the Destroyer In Chief: Satan's great effort in order to lead us to… gossip.
Let us say it again: the same man living under the roof of a sodomite tells us the devil wants to make you gossip. How a man could be so senseless is difficult to even fathom, which is why on the balance one might well conclude Francis isn't really stupid, he just hopes we think so.
And by the way, why this obsession with gossip? Can it be entirely casual that we are confronted with a Bishop of Rome who, whilst the entire West sinks in a pit of sexual perversion and threatens Christianity in an increasingly more evident way even in the West, is concerned about… gossip?
Could it rather not be that this rather strange character has every reason to fear revelations concerning his own past, his own character, his own very sexual behaviour at some point or other? And that he tries to prevent this by warning us about thinking ill of… him? How can, otherwise, this fixation with gossip whilst Christianity drowns in a see of perversion and he himself lives near to sodomites be halfway rationally explained?
And if this is so – and it might well be so: this is a former bouncer, and they aren't known for being innocent violets; nor would he be the first prelate who is blackmailed because of his past – would it then not provide a logical, rational, understandable (but not justifiable) explanation of the astonishing silence of this man, worrying about gossip as the West sinks in a pit of sexual perversion and, soon, outright persecution of real Christians?
I am no fan of conspiracy theories, because conspiracy theories are, basically without exception, outlandish in their very object and obviously aimed at explaining some absurd theory behind them. But here it is different: what is outlandish, unreal, utterly absurd is a Pope concerned with gossip as Christianity is threatened all over the West, and to try to give a logical explanation to this absurd behaviour is, in fact, the rational and logical thing to do.
There is a perfectly logical – if morally untenable; but then Bergoglio was always morally untenable – explanation for a man apparently so astonishingly blind as this one: thatvthe gay mafia – in the Vatican or outside – has him in his hands. Then, it all makes sense: the necessity to keep the pervert near him, basically controlling through his staff everyone who gets in or out; the countless episodes of downplaying of both sodomitical behaviour and gay mafia, and the slowly absurd attempts at deflecting the attention from the issue of sexual perversion when the entire West doesn't talk of anything else.
Mind, this does not have to be so. The man would be Modernist enough in his outlook even if he were to notice the gravity of the sin of the sodomites, and would not surround himself with characters like Monsignor Ricca; and that he isn't a genius, but is very fond of popularity, should by now be clear even to a very dim intelligence.
It does not have to be so. But if you ask me it is plausible to think that it might be so; because it gives a logical, plausible, rational explanation to the absurd, outlandish, unreal, beyond stupid phenomenon of a Pope blabbering nonsense about gossip as the world is excoriated by the flame-throwers of the Gaystapo.